View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2015
1. Roll Call
Etten called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating
Order: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe. City Manager Patrick
Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
Acting Mayor Etten
advised that Mayor Roe would be arriving later this evening following his role
hosting the Northeast Youth & Family Services Mayor's Challenge at Keller
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
requested removal of Item 8.h from the Consent Agenda for separate
McGehee moved, Willmus
seconded adding Business Discussion Item 15.c to discuss a potential budget
insert in the next issue of the City News.
McGehee moved, Laliberte
seconded approval of the agenda as amended.
McGehee, Willmus, and Etten.
4. Public Comment
Etten called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda
Donna Peterson, 2436 Haskell Street
stated that she found it unfortunate that the Roseville City Council had chosen
to skip over the topic of organized trash collection, especially in light of
the purchase by Ramsey County of the resource recovery unit and future plans
for that facility, whether or not its purchase necessitated organized trash
collection as a future consideration. Ms. Peterson opined that missing parts
of the issue remained not yet well-discussed, including energy use and
pollution form garbage collection. Ms. Peterson noted that she had observed
six different haulers on her street along last week, and perhaps they had
traveled along it even more than once. Ms. Peterson referenced air pollution
from diesel fueled trucks and carbon fuel emitted; her personal research of
such emissions compared with regular passenger vehicles; and further referenced
recent newspaper articles regarding carbon fuel emissions, which she had found
sobering from her perspective. Ms. Peterson further referenced efforts and
models provided by the League of Minnesota Cities for cities moving forward;
and the recent improved rating for the City of Roseville in the GreenCities
referenced studies performed by the League of Women Voters (LWV) and their
subsequent recommendation to the City Council supporting organized collection.
circumstances, Ms. Peterson questioned why the City of Roseville was not interested
in smart energy use in garbage collection and pursuing an organized trash
collection program. Ms. Peterson asked the City Council to reconsider their
Greiling, 2495 Marion Street
asked the City Council to consider their recent vote to not pursue a public
hearing on organized trash collection, and that decision made without the
benefit of public input, and fast-tracking a decision rather than giving it
consideration at a future meeting as an action item, following public notice,
as had been requested by Councilmember McGehee.
As a retired
twenty-year member of the Minnesota Legislature, Ms. Greiling questioned the
procedure used by the City Council to omit proper public notice and receipt of
public input, opining that had she followed such procedure in her committee
work for the legislature she would have been ashamed and opined that the City
Council should also be ashamed of such a practice. In her personal discussions
with Mayor Roe regarding this matter, Ms. Greiling noted that Mayor Roe had
responded to her concerns by stating that the City Council had followed their
established rules in making that decision. If that is the case, Ms. Greiling
opined that the City Council should adopt new rules; and the current rules
should apply only to non-controversial items or those not of interest to the
public versus those of substantive nature and having considerable public
interest. Ms. Greiling opined that it was arrogant on the part of the City
Council to have taken that action.
referenced campaign efforts of elected officials on the City Council as well as
their recruitment of citizens to serve on various advisory commissions for the
City; and asked how such action as taken by the City Council honored those
advisory commission members, such as on the Public Works, Environment and
Transportation Commission (PWETC), who had studied this issue along with their
staff liaisons for over one and one-half years and then after recommending
unanimously that the City Council adopt organized collection, show such a lack
of respect for them in following that recommendation.
noted the delay immediately following their recommendation due to the City
Council's intent for seeking further public input from a community survey
following a previous public hearing, which she found to be simply an excuse not
to take action at that time. Ms. Greiling opined that she found the survey
question extremely slanted, and of such an unusual nature that many respondents
were not aware of what they were actually being asked. Ms. Greiling suggested
that the City Council hold a public hearing to educate the public on this
issue; at which time the Mayor and two Councilmembers opposed to organized
collection could also state their case to the public, while allowing the
proponents for organized collection, Councilmembers Etten and McGehee, to also
state their case with the public present and both sides of the issue clearly
advised that she represented the Village of St. Anthony who had just started
the organized collection process recently following adoption of new legislation
authored by Senator Marty, and subsequent to her original bill that had been
unable to get a hearing in the past, but then passed almost unanimously based
on the common sense presented from various studies.
begged the City Council to reconsider their decision and provide a public
process and exhibit similar leadership as the City of Bloomington was currently
doing, to address both sides of the issue thoroughly. Ms. Greiling referenced
her personal discussions with former PWETC Chairperson Mr. Jan Vanderwall, who
had provided his rationale for the PWETC's recommendation at that time; and his
opinion that it provided residents an opportunity to obtain a fair price for
trash collection, since current pricing was not advertised and varied considerably
among haulers as well as customers using one hauler.
asked the City Council to hold a public hearing on this issue.
Toogood, 601 Terrace Court
noted the considerable time he'd spent with this trash collection issue, as
well as the efforts of the Roseville Citizens League Board in 2010, and the
information al meetings they had held with citizens, trash haulers, and
representatives of the industry specific to this issue. Mr. Toogood noted that
this involved a significant number of meetings, public testimony and subsequent
unanimous recommendation by the Board to pursue organized trash collection.
noted that, at that time, Mayor Klausing recommended referring the issue to the
PWETC for further study, again involving many meetings and public testimony at
that level, and their ultimate unanimous recommendation supporting organized
trash collection as well. Mr. Toogood noted his considerable surprise to
observe the recent newspaper headline indicating that the City Council was not
going to pursue it; and based on the history of this issue, expressed his
personal disappointment and shock in that decision.
recognized the City Council's rationale in delaying their decision immediately
following the PWETC recommendation, due to political ramifications, and the
City Council's statement that the issue had been put on the back burner for a
In the process
of receiving public input, Mr. Toogood noted the forum held by the Roseville
Citizens League Board, with 125-150 members of the community attending, as well
as other City officials and representatives of trash haulers. Mr. Toogood also
noted subsequent public hearings held in 2013 by the City Council and their
decision to delay action until results of the community survey had been
received. Mr. Toogood displayed a copy of the actual survey question and responses,
as provided in the previously referenced newspaper article. Mr. Toogood opined
that the question was worded very inadequately and provides insufficient
information for adequate responses, and opined that it could even be considered
on the edge of stupidity.
referenced and provided to the bench several pieces of new information he had
researched, including a pricing list from Republic Services for residents in
the City of Maplewood and their organized trash collection service, with prices
ranging from $7.02 to $13.62 depending on container size; and subsequent
information showing the high satisfaction level of residents related to cost,
efficiency and service. Mr. Toogood advised that this disproved any statements
that new information is available, as now it is based on the experiences in
implementing organized collection in other metropolitan communities.
provided his personal discussions with a Maplewood resident, formerly very
vocally opposed to organized collection, and his changed mindset after
implementation and positive comments about the program, expressing his embarrassment
about his former negativity without being fully knowledgeable about the
asked that the City bring this issue back for discussion.
Bob Murray, 1433
admitted that he was still trying to understand the entire trash collection
issue; however, he stated his satisfaction with the current system. Mr. Murray
defended the wording of the community survey question, opining that it was well
stated as an open-ended question, typical of surveys, and he didn't find it
slanted in any way. Mr. Murray opined that it was a good survey question. Mr.
Murray further stated that he didn't understand the hypothetical comments about
CO2, since too little was actually more detrimental to the environment.
As a military
veteran, Mr. Murray stated that he had served to ensure a continued freedom of
choice, and he confirmed his belief in the free market system allowing for
choice versus government being in charge. Mr. Murray referenced the importance
of veterans versus garbage collection; and opined that throwing out insinuations
without accurate documentation was not a good thing, and was Hitler-like. Mr.
Murray reiterated that he found the survey question clear and simple; and his
support of free enterprise without lowing individual principles and ethics.
Mr. Murray further opined that while everyone had a right to disagree, he found
the survey question not slanted or biased.
expressed his thanks for the action of the City Council, and for having the
freedom to speak out, whether speakers are in agreement or not. However, Mr.
Murray questioned why the same issues continued to be rehashed versus moving on
to other issues more important to the community.
offered a question for the League of Women Voters, an organization he had found
to be great in the past when it was more educational versus political, and Ms.
Greiling why they didn't continued their education efforts, and efforts to get
people out to vote, versus becoming political entity and perhaps losing their
tax exempt status.
2800 Hills Court S
As a business
owner since 1984, Mr. Ryan admitted he'd come into this discussion late.
However, based on a business perspective, Mr. Ryan noted when someone
encroaches on his business decision-making ability, which would occur if the
City Council again reconsidered this issue it could have ramifications on other
services. Mr. Ryan questioned why not limit the size of trucks used by
plumbers in residential areas as well; or limiting hair salons of in-home
services. Mr. Ryan opined that any such action would encroach on his decision
making or choices. If companies were consolidated in one area, Mr. Ryan opined
that naturally it would reduce costs and guarantee a customer base, which
appeared to be what the previous speakers before Mr. Murray were trying to
impose. However, Mr. Ryan noted that had a negative impact on his
decision-making and imposed on his ability and liberties.
admitted he had not received a survey and had not participated; however, then
government continued to take chunks of the pie and removed his choices, how
much more should he take before moving from the community as a result of 'mission
creep,' or the choking effect from his government.
While he could
choose to move away from Roseville, Mr. Ryan stated his appreciation for the
community, even while concerned with a small City Council of five elected
officials having the ability to tell him to abide by their rules versus his
freedom to hire a service privately, and encroaching on his rights. Mr. Ryan
also expressed his interest in being able to choose his own recycling service
provider versus having a fee applied to his utility bill. Mr. Ryan opined that
the City of Roseville was becoming restrictive like big cities, applying a
noose hold on its citizens.
Mayor Roe arrived at
approximately 6:33 p.m., and Acting Mayor Etten turned over the gavel to him
for the remainder of the meeting.
Kysylyczyn, 3083 Victoria Street
perspective, Mr. Kysylyczyn pointed out several erroneous statements during
tonight's public comment, based on his experience in working with and research
he performed for various communities, specifically on trash hauling and
consumption, Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the reason Minnesota experienced
progressive industries compared to other states was due to the competition
available, including that of trash haulers. Mr. Kysylyczyn stated the reason
for trash haulers moving to the use of compressed natural gas fuel was based on
market-place competition; and if that incentive was removed, there would be no
reason for them to move toward new technology.
Based on his
recollection, Mr. Kysylyczyn indicated that a public hearing had been held by
the City Council, and therefore, the claim that decisions were made in the
darkness of night were inaccurate and would not be supported by the public
record for those decisions.
Specific to the
citizen survey, Mr. Kysylyczyn noted the similarity of the Roseville survey
question to that asked in other communities (e.g. Cities of Shoreview and
Fridley). While the outcome may be surprising or disappointing to some, Mr.
Kysylyczyn opined that the results from other communities had also been
similar, with the citizen majority stating their preference to retain their
choice of haulers. If the question had been terribly worded or slanted, Mr.
Kysylyczyn opined that the results would have been different.
current process undertaken by the City of Bloomington, Mr. Kysylyczyn
referenced comments by one of their Councilmembers, indicating the expenditure
of $350,000 in tax money to consultants to guide them to move toward a single trash
hauler. Even though their original goals had been to encourage more recycling
and less trash, improve safety, and experience less road repair, Mr. Kysylyczyn
noted the comments of this Councilmember who considered the pursuit of these
efforts to have been a complete failure based on staff reports, without
accomplishing any of those original goals, including research results for the
City of Bloomington over the last fifteen years.
Mr. Kysylyczyn referenced
his research with garbage collection from Hennepin County regarding emissions,
safety and roadway maintenance. Mr. Kysylyczyn noted that the author of that
document was Carl Kiel, a previous employee of the City of Roseville before
moving to the private sector, and now the Public Works Director for the City of
thanked the public for their comments, and apologized for being tardy for
tonight's meeting, thanking Acting Mayor Etten for serving in his place.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Mayor Roe announced
the deadline this week for a vacancy on the Civic Engagement Commission; and
June dates for City of Roseville/Ramsey County hazardous household waste
collection located on Ken Street in Roseville, off Larpenteur Avenue and Dale
Street, with additional information available from Environmental Specialist
Ryan Johnson at 651/792-7049.
McGehee provided a brief explanation of the blue lights on stop lights in
Ramsey County and their purpose to alert law enforcement of vehicles running
Donations and Communications
Introduce New Police Officers Haivy Vang and Matt Sisterman
introduced the City's two newest police officers and provided a brief biography
of each officer.
Vang thanked the Roseville Police Department and City Council for giving him
the opportunity to be employed by Roseville, noting the comments he'd received
about and how well-spoken of the department was among other agencies. Officer
Vang noted this created high expectations for him in filling his position, and
expressed his intent to try to be the best officer he could be for the good of
the department and community, hoping that over the next few months his actions
would support those efforts and show he belonged here.
Sisterman thanked Mayor Roe, Councilmembers, the City Administration and Police
Chief Mathwig for this opportunity. Given his long background with military
security and as a Police Reserve Officer on the Roseville Police Department,
Officer Sisterman stated that he would strive to take that experience and
training to become the best sworn officer he could be.
On behalf of
the community and City Council, Mayor Roe welcomed Officers Vang and Sisterman
to the community.
Accept Golf Cart Donation from Roseville Police Foundation
Mathwig noted the golf cart parked in front of City Hall, given its arrival
earlier today, and intended to be used by and further expand the efforts of the
Park Patrol, including interesting new volunteer opportunities.
of the Roseville Police Foundation Board, Julie Wearn, Mike Bilski, and Dick
Houck were present for this presentation, with financing for the donated
vehicle arranged by the Foundation, and its value estimated at $11,000.
thanked Club Car, distributor of the Transport 4 vehicle for their reduction of
20% off the original list price; and expressed the Foundation's willingness to
continue working with the Police Department in assisting with expenses above
and beyond annual budget constraints. Mr. Bilski thanked members of the Foundation
for their generous donations to-date.
moved, Etten seconded, recognition of and acceptance of the donation from the
Roseville Police Foundation of a 2015 Cub Cadet Transporter (golf cart) for use
by the Roseville Park Patrol, at an approximate value of $8,000.
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
On behalf of
the community, City Council, and staff, Mayor Roe thanked the firm of Club Car,
and the Foundation for this generous donation, and expressed the community's
interest in working with them in the future.
7. Approve Minutes
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior
to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft
presented in the Council packet.
Approve May 11, 2015 Regular Council Meeting Minutes
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the May 11, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes as presented,
with reiteration of corrections previously addressed on page 9, line 44, and
page 32, line 29 as noted.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Approve May 27, 2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes
McGehee moved, Etten
seconded, approval of May 27, 2015 Special Meeting Minutes as presented.
Laliberte, McGehee, Etten and Roe.
Approve June 1, 2015 Special Council Meeting Minutes
moved, Etten seconded, approval of June 1, 2015 Special Meeting Minutes as
Page 2, Line 27 (Roe)
8. Approve Consent Agenda
There were no
additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the
request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon briefly reviewed those
items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific
Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments, dated June 8, 2015.
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
77400 - 77666
Approve New Applications for Business and Other Licenses
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of new applications for business and other licenses
Approve 2015 Business and Other License Renewals
moved, McGehee seconded, approval/renewal of business and other licenses for
terms as noted.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
McGehee seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services, and
where applicable, trade-in/sale of surplus equipment as noted in the RCA and
Attachment A entitled, '2015 Capital Improvement Plan Summary,' updated May 31,
Receive Grant Application Update
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the update by staff of grant applications
and awards to-date.
Approve a Resolution to Accept the Work Completed, Authorize
Final Payment, and Commence the One-Year Warranty Period on the 2014 Sanitary
Sewer Lining Project
Etten moved, McGehee
seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11222 (Attachment A) entitled, 'Final
Contract Acceptance - 2014 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project;' authorizing payment
of the final contract amount not to exceed $41,397.90 to Insituform
Technologies USA, LLC; and authorizing the one-year warranty period.
Request by the Community Development Department for Approval of
an Amendment to the Joint Cooperation Agreement with Ramsey County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority for the Allocation of Funding for Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Programs
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11223 (Attachment A) entitled,
Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG Urban County Requalification process with the Ramsey County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority and the City of Roseville.
Certify Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to Property Taxes
Etten moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of
Resolution No. 11224 (Attached) entitled, 'Resolution Directing the County
Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2015 or
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Approve Roseville Firefighters' Relief Association Bylaw
McGehee noted the list included with Attachment A indicating that the current
Mayor, City Manager and Finance Director were declining any compensation
reimbursement. However, Councilmember McGehee questioned whether or not this
should be made part of future by-law provisions with compensation for City officials
not an option.
Roe noted any revisions would need to go through the Relief Association
process; however, stated that the City Council could pass a motion to that
affect if it so desired.
Relief Association Chair David Breen
Association Chair Breen noted that the attached schedule as referenced stated
that those officials declined compensation, if language was revised, it would
need to be based on bylaw language as well and applicable revisions to that
document. If that was the desire of the City Council, Mr. Breen advised that
the revised language and bylaws would need to go before the Board for adoption,
and then return to the City Council for that additional change. However, Mr.
Breen noted that revisions were addressed at each annual meeting of the
Association, after which they were submitted to the City Council for their
ratification, allowing their final approval of the document.
concurrence by Mr. Breen, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that there would be
no ability for City staff to take any compensation until and unless subsequent
changes were made to the document. Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Breen both stated that
there were unaware of any language revisions proposed for the January 2016
annual meeting of the Relief Association.
Laliberte expressed her comfort in approving the document as presented tonight;
however, she did agree with the direction indicated by Councilmember McGehee to
for future iterations to avoid any potential compensation attempts or confusion.
Roe opined this may be more of a City Council policy versus that of the Relief
Association, whether city representatives can or cannot be compensated. If
such a motion were to be made tonight, Mayor Roe recommended that it be done
outside the realm of the proposed motion ratifying this document.
moved, McGehee seconded, approval by the City Council approving Restated Bylaws
of the Roseville Firefighter's Relief Association (Attachment A) dated January
Approve 'No Parking' Resolution for Cleveland Avenue
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11225 (Attached) entitled,
'Resolution Prohibiting Parking on Both Sides of Cleveland Avenue from County
Road C N to County Road D.'
Consider Items Removed from Consent
Approve Purchase of a New Medical Response Vehicle
At the request of
Mayor Roe, City Manager Patrick Trudgeon deferred to Chief O'Neill and Battalion
Chiefs Greg Peterson and David Brosnahan to respond to questions related to
Willmus noted the difference in numbers carried forward from the long-term
capital improvement program (CIP) and those documented in the RCA, and
potential differences in potential savings.
clarified that the savings indicated in the RCA had been based on the proposed
2016 budget as submitted to City Manager Trudgeon but yet to be submitted to
the City Council. In order to further clarify the savings based on the
approved 2015 budget, Chief O'Neill advised that the projected savings would be
$254,000; with savings in the 2016 budget projected at $326,548.
Willmus asked for experience of other urban versus rural community fire
departments using similar vehicles, their longevity and how often they were
replaced; and how that compared with replacement schedules for the current
Suburban vehicles used by the department.
Chief David Brosnahan
Brosnahan responded that research involved several other metropolitan
communities using similar type vehicles; and change out of their chassis within
8-10 years, and change out of the body every 16-20 years. Chief Brosnahan noted
the anticipated useful life of this type of vehicle in excess of 100,000 miles
; with the current Suburbans serving between 70,000 to 90,000 miles.
response to Councilmember Etten, Chief Brosnahan advised that in order to get
longer life from these units, it was anticipated that they would be worked into
the normal fleet allowing more trade-off time and reducing wear and tear for
those vehicles considered first-out for responses.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Chief O'Neill advised that the intent was
to apply the trade-in cost for one vehicle this year to the cost of the new
vehicle, and switch those first-out vehicles to further increase their
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief O'Neill advised that the current
Suburban units were traded in every 3-4 years; but further clarified that those
¾ ton units were no longer available.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief Brosnahan addressed the higher
structural integrity of these units, allowing a longer lifespan for this
particular chassis since it was better built, and offered better warranty
options further increasing their longevity and less maintenance required.
strictly on mileage, Chief O'Neill admitted that the mileage of the chassis
would well exceed 100,000; however, this was an unknown at this time as this
type of unit was yet untried for the department. Chief O'Neill expressed hope
that their functionality could be maintained long-term. However, given their
higher rate of use and abuse in responding to an average of 4,000 emergency
calls annually, even though not at a necessarily high number of miles, there
was a significant increase in stops and starts for the vehicle compared to a
typical personal vehicle.
Brosnahan also noted the additional weight added from additional equipment,
increasing the wear and tear, which had become very evident in the uptick for
maintenance in first-out vehicles such as the ¾ ton Suburban.
the request of Councilmember Willmus, Chief Brosnahan advised that the City of
St. Louis Park was running this same unit for the 8 and 16 year lifespan before
change-out. While the Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department was also now
using this type of unit, Chief Brosnahan advised that they had just changed
over recently and did not have sufficient experience beyond initial indications
of the advantages of this type of unit.
moved, Etten seconded, authorization for the purchase by State Bid and
Rosenbauer Minnesota LLC for the purchase of a new medical response vehicle in
the amount of $80,000; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute
the purchasing agreement.
Willmus expressed appreciation for the department's research with other
departments; however, he expressed his personal hesitation in the projected
longevity of these units based on the coming Roseville demographic and
anticipated future increase in calls. Councilmember Willmus questioned whether
or not trying to get eight years form an emergency vehicle was the best plan
going forward, nor the path to pursue unless the units provided 100% confidence
in their performance ability. Councilmember Willmus likened this type of unit
with those used for heavy construction and the increase and frequency of
maintenance when they reach 100,000 and above.
McGehee addressed the concerns of Councilmember Willmus as to whether his
concerns were based on too high of expectations of the units, or what he was
suggesting as an alternative based on his experience with operating a larger
Willmus stated his concern with the projected longevity of this type of unit,
and suggested looking more closely at other departments using this type of
vehicle and related maintenance, especially when lives depend on the operation
of this vehicle, and extra concerns he had when the units reach in excess of
the request of Mayor Roe, Chief Brosnahan reiterated the department's intent to
rotate the vehicles as the chassis were changed out and mileage and maintenance
issues increase, moving another vehicle into the role for first-out.
Roe asked if the department had a 'Plan B' in case this unit required replacement
more often than anticipated, especially based on the higher cost of these units
versus the current vehicle of choice, the Suburban.
O'Neill noted that, while the department currently utilizes three Suburbans,
the ¾ ton was no longer available moving forward, prompting the department to
review other options. Chief O'Neill advised that research had indicated this
vehicle would serve well, and provide another desired outcome in compartments
for storage of potentially contaminated gear after its use outside passenger
areas, secure tool storage capabilities, and a larger vehicle to carry more rescue
equipment. Chief O'Neill advised that this recommended unit was a direct
result of staff thinking 'out-of-the-box' to see what was available, and
subsequent consideration of using this unit. Chief O'Neill admitted that this
option was a risk and an experiment as an unknown for Roseville as stated by
Councilmember Willmus. However, Chief O'Neill noted that another option would
be to revert back to a vehicle similar to the Surburban that would be less
expensive, but spoke in support of trying this unit that had proven successful
with other departments and basing this recommendation on their experience. .
the request of Councilmember Etten, Chief Brosnahan advised that St. Louis Park,
Stillwater, and St. Anthony Fire Departments had used this type of unit in
excess of ten years; with Lake Johanna Volunteer Fire Department for much less
time, and on a similar plan as that of Roseville.
the request of Councilmember Etten, Chief Brosnahan advised that the estimated
projected range for replacement of the chassis is $55,000 to $65,000.
Etten noted that this unit would increase the initial upfront cost to $80,000
versus the $70,000 cost for the Suburban unit and replacement every 3-4 years,
representing a potential savings in 3-4 years with the chassis.
McGehee referenced staff's presentation indicating that this unit is similar to
the vehicles used by the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments,
allowing the City's maintenance department some familiarity with it and the
possibility that some repairs could be handled in-house and save on maintenance
Willmus requested additional information from other departments as to longevity
and their experiences with this unit, unless one of the current Suburban units
is in urgent need of replacement in the next week.
General Ordinances for Adoption
Consider Amending City Code, Chapter 302 Liquor Control to Allow
for Off- and On-Sale Microdistellery Sales and to Allow for Sunday Sales of
Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized this request, noting it was a first draft,
and intended for City Council to move forward at a future meeting unless it was
their preference was to enact revised language at tonight's meeting. Mr.
Trudgeon deferred to City Attorney Mark Gaughan for further detail and the purpose
of these recommended revisions.
Attorney Gaughan advised that, with recent legislative changes, two additional
license categories had been incorporated. Mr. Gaughan noted that one of those
categories for off-sale distilled spirits at microdistilleries allowed one
bottle per customer per day in accordance with revised State Law. Mr. Gaughan
also noted that revised language adds a category for cocktail rooms, like a
taproom license at small breweries, for alcohol sold and consumed on premises.
Mr. Gaughan further noted the added draft language related to Sunday growler
sales at taprooms in accordance with new legislation adopted for municipalities
during the last legislative session.
one of the attributes of the City's current liquor ordinance is its attempt to
mirror state law where and when possible, Mr. Gaughan stated his uncertainty in
how expansive the municipal ordinance should be, therefore he incorporated everything
in revised language. However, Mr. Gaughan noted the rapid pace and significant
changes currently occurring with state liquor laws, it may be helpful for
efficiencies sake to continue referencing State Statute sections and reflect
those changes for efficiency's sake, and only call out those areas in which the
municipality may not concur. Mr. Gaughan stated the need for the City of Roseville
to become more diligent in an annual review of local ordinances and agreed with
the statement by City Manager Trudgeon that it was intended that this draft be
hacked up and only serve as a starting point for City Council discussions.
Roe requested City Attorney Gaughan to update legislative changes reflected in
Section F of the document, and Item 1 related to off-sale breweries and
statutory changes referenced beyond those indicated in this draft and without another
draft available at the bench.
Attorney Gaughan responded that the taproom and growler sales were both
addressed statutorily and actually given their own special sections during the
most recent legislative session; and therefore re-referenced in the municipal
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that statutory
language provided more detailed information than intentionally made available
in the municipal ordinance; and therefore the municipal code only explicitly
referenced those state laws for those particular license categories.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney further confirmed that state legislation
also provided a change for sales, referenced as the Bloody Mary Law, and
therefore the municipal ordinance was not amended.
McGehee questioned if the time outlined in the draft ordinance, Section
302.13.G from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. was amenable to the City or needed
reconsideration concurrent with bar hour operations in the City of Roseville.
response, City Attorney Gaughan advised that the reference was intended to
address growler sales on Sundays for those hours, and not intended to be analogous
to off-sale hours. Mr. Gaughan advised that he had simply made those Sunday
sale hours similar to other retail hours of operation in Roseville.
McGehee opined that most general retail sales in Roseville started much later
than 8:00 a.m.; and questioned how closely to regulate liquor sales with those
other businesses with proximity to residential areas or churches.
Roe noted that on-sale taproom hours start at 8:00 a.m. through 1:00 a.m.
Attorney Gaughan advised that, if that was the City Council's direction, it
would be consistent with on-sale taproom licenses.
Willmus expressed his preference to reference State Statute as in the past
without imposing any greater limits at this point.
Etten expressed his support of the proposed changes identified by City Attorney
Gaughan. However, Councilmember Etten questioned language including 'at' in
Section 302.13 in the revised language in that clause, with respect to off-sale
brewery sales on Sunday.
Attorney advised that there would be no impact either way if the word 'at'
remained or was stricken from revised language.
Roe concurred with City Attorney Gaughan, opining that the heading off-sale
brewery did not preclude language specific to the off-sale category itself.
a related note, Mayor Roe referenced Section 301.11 for outdoor patio sales
outside a structure and specific to the sale of intoxicating malt liquor; with
original intentions to include that requirement for taproom and off-sale
Attorney Gaughan advised that the vernacular of Section 302.02.B included all
intoxicating drinks, including breweries and would encompass malt liquor as
well as 3.2 beer or any liquor from his understanding.
Roe advised that while in agreement in general, he was not ready to enact this
ordinance at this point.
one appeared to offer public comment on this issue.
moved to accept the ordinance as drafted and presented.
Roe noted the pending references needing revision as previously noted.
Attorney Gaughan suggested his office make the further revisions as noted, and
present it on the Consent Agenda at the next meeting, as well as an Ordinance
Summary for publication, creating a fully edited document for the official
Roe noted the ordinance reference to license fees in the adopted fee schedule;
however, he noted those actual license fees had yet to be incorporated into the
existing fee schedule, and suggested it also mirror comparable tap room and
brewery category fees.
objection, City Attorney Gaughan was directed to provide a revised draft and
summary for the next City Council meeting.
Business Items (Action Items)
Request by Premium Real Estate Solutions, LLC for Approval of a
Preliminary Plat at 311 County Road B
Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized this requested Preliminary Plat approval
as detailed in the RCA dated June 8, 2015, following unanimous recommendation
with conditions by the Planning Commission at their May 2015 meeting, with that
information included in packet materials. Since that Commission meeting, Mr.
Lloyd noted that the applicant had been working with the City's Public
Works/Engineering staff to revise the stormwater management plan to take
advantage of its intended location for the new homes, as well as addressing
broader long-term stormwater issues farther west of the project site. Mr.
Lloyd advised that staff concurred with the recommendations of the Planning
Commission for approval as conditioned.
McGehee questioned the conclusion of the applicant's work with neighbors
regarding the windmill currently on the development site, as well as an update
on the tree inventory.
to the windmill, Mr. Lloyd advised that developer had diligently sought
resolution to remove and relocate the windmill with interest expressed by the Roseville
Historical Society, Minnesota State Fair, University of Minnesota, and
neighbors to the south, all having expressed interest conceptually, but none
able or willing to pay for its removal and relocation that would require a
crane or specialized moving equipment.
McGehee expressed her personal interest in seeing a more concerted effort to
resolve moving and relocating the windmill, suggesting it could possibly serve
as an amenity on the development's outlot/green space for the neighborhood. Councilmember
McGehee requested staff bring proposed costs for moving the windmill.
Roe clarified that such a request would need to receive the support of the full
the tree inventory, Councilmember McGehee expressed her concerns with it, and
requested future inventories provide much more specificity, as to the specific
type of species (e.g. American or Chinese Elm or Silver or other type of
Maple). Given the multiple varieties of some tree species, Councilmember
McGehee their type is actually somewhat significant with some not found as undesirable
as others, and their removal not supported.
Lloyd clarified that the only time the actual type of tree species staff could
include in their calculations was in determining whether they were classified
as a good tree or a bad tree on the listed species used. However, Mr. Lloyd
advised that staff tended to err on the side of caution and on the more
conservative side; with the more important matter from their perspective identifying
the location of the trees and their size, and in relation to building
footprints, and impacts to grading and/or drainage of a site.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd advised that S & S Tree
Service, approved third party consultant for the City in reviewing tree plans
had not been involved at this time as the revised site plan had only been made
available late last week, and their firm was not yet officially on board with
signed contracts. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that when appropriate, their firm
would be performing the review as the process progressed.
McGehee addressed specific trees listed in the inventory, questioning the need
for their removal; with Councilmember Willmus clarifying that the referenced
sizes addressed diameter at breast height, not how tall a tree was.
Lloyd concurred, clarifying that the only exception to that statement would be
for Cedar trees that were actually identified by height.
there were only four Cedar trees currently on the entire site, and in the interest
of diversity, and given the lack of Oak trees and inability to identify the
type of Maple trees on site, Councilmember McGehee suggested the need to further
review with the goal of revising the proposed list of tree removals.
Regarding the location of the proposed building pad shown on the grading plan
for Lot 1, Block 1, Councilmember Willmus noted its location abutted the proposed
easement area, and suggested working with the developer to shift the building
pad further to the north to avoid any future issues with a structure on the
edge of the easement. Councilmember Willmus advised that he didn't intend to
hold up the plat due to that concern; however, for the long-term comfort of
future homeowners and possible use of heavy equipment for the City to access
the easement, it may be prudent address that issue.
Lloyd noted the intent of the developer was to provide a comfortable distance
between the home, sloping topography and highway noise.
to the windmill issue, if arrangements can be made between parties to facilitate
its removal and relocation, Councilmember Willmus was willing to do so;
however, again expressed his intent not to hold up plat approval for
the significant grade change currently on the site, and filling as part of this
proposed plat, Councilmember Etten asked if staff had any concerns for homes to
be constructed or for the existing neighborhood that slanted this way; and questioned
if drainage flow could be handled if those building pads were raised up more.
Lloyd advised that drainage would rely on pipe infrastructure and street
drains, and deferred to Public Works Director/Engineer Mark Culver for comment.
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Culver advised that the City's Engineering staff
had reviewed this preliminary plat and continued to work with the developer on
final grading details, as well as requirements of the watershed district. Mr.
Culver advised that all parties were confident that the proposed grading plan would
handle drainage and route it where needed. Mr. Culver noted that staff would
continue to work closely with the developer for any modifications indicated for
stormwater best management practices (BMP's) in that area; however, he
expressed confidence that the proposed plan would help the overall drainage for
the area, to the east in particular as well as water to the west arriving in a
more reasonable fashion.
a fan of trees, Councilmember Etten supported Councilmember McGehee's request
for more specificity in the future. Councilmember Etten noted the location of
a Cedar tree sitting right in the middle of where one home is to be constructed,
and questioned if it would be possible to relocate that structure to allow them
to be preserved. Whether or not the City chose to change its tree preservation
ordinance in the future, Councilmember Etten opined it would be advantageous to
keep the type of particular tree species at a higher and more diverse level.
the drainage and utility easement between Lots 1 and 2, Councilmember Willmus
asked City Attorney Gaughan whether reference was needed in the plat to address
the need for the City's access to the outlot as well as any other future uses
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan responded that the plat didn't
need to reference it, but it was important that it was specifically addressed
in the easement document itself.
Willmus concurred, as long as it was made very clear.
McGehee reiterated the need to focus on the diversity of vegetation not only
Roe noted that that was a key focus of the City's tree ordinance, that any
removal needed to be replaced with diverse species.
applicant was present, but offered no comments beyond staff's presentation.
was no public comment offered on this issue.
moved, Etten seconded, approval of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT of Farrington
Estates at 311 County Road B, based on the findings and recommendations, and
conditions of the Planning Commission and the details of the RCA dated June 8,
Laliberte thanked the Planning Commission and staff for addressing the multiple
the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the building pads are not
part of plat approval, only approval of lot lines and any easements, as
reflected in the City's Preliminary Plat ordinance language.
Request by Cities Edge Architects for Approval of an Amended
Common Interest Community Plat at 2715 Long Lake Road
Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this request providing a new
description of Unit 6 for the addition of a small swimming pool, as detailed in
the RCA dated June 8, 2015; and supported unanimously by the Planning Commission
with one condition.
Willmus questioned if this was considered a replat or subdivision.
Paschke responded that it was shifting lot lines, and would be more indicative
of a recombination or subdivision.
Willmus asked if there was any ramification regarding the park dedication.
the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan advised that, while no new lots
were being created, it was questionable from his perspective whether new ordinance
language addressing one acre minimum lot size was triggered. However, as with
any subdivision, it was necessary to show there was a need created to trigger a
park dedication, and given the uniqueness of this request, he found that provision
questionable at best.
Paschke advised that this request was presented to the Parks & Recreation
Commission at their meeting last week, and they requested a park dedication,
which would ultimately need to be addressed by the City Attorney before a final
plat comes before the City Council for approval.
applicant was present but had no comment beyond staff's presentation; and no
public comment was provided on this issue.
clarification purposes, Mayor Roe noted this was a Preliminary, not Final, Plat
moved, Laliberte seconded, approval of the proposed changes to Unit 6 of
Rosedale Corporate Plaza Condominium AMENDED PRELIMINARY
CIC PLAT; based on the comments, findings and conditions as detailed in the RCA
dated June 8, 2015.
this is some of the last green space available in that area, Councilmember Etten
spoke in support of considering a park dedication fee with the intent to look
at City Code based on that rationale in this case.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:03 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:11 p.m. Given
concerns with time constraints and the number of audience members present who
may wish to comment on the Twin Lakes discussion, without objection, Mayor Roe
amended the agenda to address Item 15.b prior to Item 15.a
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Discuss Twin Lakes next Steps: Land Use Definitions and Building
Bryan Lloyd provided an updated Table of Revised Uses listed by intensity, and
a map indicating revised Subareas, representing previous discussions
(Attachment A). As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff attempted
to incorporate public input, but based on their review of archived meeting
tapes or meeting minutes, found the information unclear as related to 24-hour uses,
whether retail or other uses (e.g. medical). Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that
staff was seeking direction on 24-hour uses to clarify whether that intent was
for no 24-hour uses of any kind permitted in Subarea A, and some uses permitted
in Subareas B and C depending on the type of use (e.g. retail or medical). Mr.
Lloyd referenced the neighborhood petition specific to 24-hour uses indicating
their opposition; however, again Mr. Lloyd expressed confusion as to whether
that intent was specific to all uses or only specifically related to 24-hour
advised that another needed part of tonight's discussion included terms and
uses addressed with previous discussions, and the need for definitions proceeding
further conversations (e.g. fast food uses). Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had
separated categories to provide focused discussions, and suggested if the purpose
of a fast food use category was to regulate any and all drive-throughs or if it
only applied to fast food uses. As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Lloyd noted
staff's inclusion of the current context and definitions for all
Mr. Lloyd noted
that another part of that definition discussion involved big box retail, with
staff including a listing of various types of big-box retail stores and their
square footage using Ramsey County data. Mr. Lloyd noted that the most obvious
break for store size was around the 100,000 square foot mark, and suggested the
City Council provide direction to staff as to whether or not they concurred
with that size division point.
Mr. Lloyd asked for the City Council's direction to staff on height regulations
across the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and whether they should apply across
the entire area or be regulated differently depending on their location and
proximity to adjacent uses. Mr.. Lloyd referenced the neighborhood petition
desiring a maximum height of two stories, and concentration of density and intensity
closer to County Road C and Cleveland Avenue and other major thoroughfares.
Mayor Roe asked
Mr. Lloyd to restate building height discussions relative to their proximity
and distance from other uses.
responded that in November of 2014, the neighborhood petition included building
heights within LDR (single- and two-family properties), and a greater density
within more commercial margins of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
In order to
facilitate and focus tonight's discussion, Mayor Roe suggested four separate
categories, and further suggested providing an opportunity for public comment
following each category. Mayor Roe suggested the four areas be: 1) Table of
Uses/Subarea Map; 2) 24-hour Uses: 3) Land Use Definitions Individually; and 4)
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Lloyd and Councilmember Willmus clarified the
area represented by 1,000' and approximate story height of 15' per story, with
a 95' tall building somewhat over six stories high.
Mayor Roe opined,
with general agreement by colleagues, that for the most part staff had
accurately captured previous discussions regarding Subarea locations and
Permitted (P) or Non-Permitted (NP), and Permitted Conditional Uses (CU).
Etten noted his comfort with the boundaries now indicated; however, he noted
his concern with the need for an additional or fourth Subarea to address
current areas abutting twin homes within Subarea A, and considerations on the
east side of Langton Lake and the north side of Terrace Drive.
Mayor Roe noted
that Subarea A had not been firmly settled during the previous discussion;
however, he found the subarea map and table of uses to accurately reflect how
that discussion was left. Mayor Roe sought public comment as to whether their
perception was in agreement with that of the City Council and reflected that
discussion accurately. Mayor Roe noted that, obviously future discussion would
be needed to further address specific uses desired by the public.
No one from the
audience responded at this time.
limited production/processing, Councilmember Laliberte noted the limited hours,
while they were listed across the board as P; and questioned at what point
conditions were indicated.
Mayor Roe noted that current code provided certain design standards and addressed
extended hours of operation, and they would apply to this area as well.
agreed with Mayor Roe's comments, noting that certain requirements must be met
where the use is a P, with current code providing applicant standards for P
uses. While noise is one of those factors, as pointed out by Councilmember
McGehee, Mr. Lloyd noted current code addressed requirements on several different
levels, including nuisance requirements, noise limits and hours, and extended
hours of operation to minimize or limit noise with nighttime uses and deliveries.
Mr. Lloyd advised that part of the definition for limited production/processing
was a general guideline that another tenant would now be aware of those
Councilmember Etten's concerns about Subarea A, Councilmember Willmus expressed
curiosity as to his colleagues' interest in possibly creating a fourth Subarea.
Councilmember Willmus stated his preference to maintain what had been
designated for P and NP uses in Subarea A; but he had some concerns with the
area east of Langton Lake and if creation of a new designation in that additional
Subarea would provide a greater comfort level for the City Council and
suggested holding that type of discussion until after staff is given feedback
and the public is heard regarding the four areas for focus as identified
earlier and whether or not the RCA and attachments clearly reflected and were
an accurate outcome of those previous discussions going forward.
In response to
Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember McGehee stated that from her perspective,
the only P use she would strike from Subarea A would be office/showroom based
on previous discussions regarding height.
If a fourth
Subarea was to be created, Councilmember Etten opined that height would be one
of those issues. Councilmember Etten expressed his agreement with
Councilmember Willmus, opining that he didn't want to withhold the discussion
for the potential creation of a fourth Subarea for too long. If such a Subarea
(e.g. Subarea D) was to be created, east of Langton Lake, Councilmember Etten
noted that height would be part of that, and since the use was based on
proximity to the existing residential neighborhood. However, Councilmember
Etten noted that a housing use could pop up tomorrow that may not show the same
respect for housing in the potential Subarea D.
suggested having the height discussion and then circling back to that issue as
Mayor Roe noted
the need to direct whether or not to permit 24-hour uses in the entire Twin
Lakes area or whether existing code language related to extended hours of
operation would adequately address those P or NP uses.
further indicated the need for direction on whether 24-hour retail uses would
be treated differently than other P uses, such as medical.
versus Other Uses
spoke in support of separating 24-hour retail from other 24-hour uses.
Mayor Roe noted
this would indicate the potential to not allow 24-hour retail, but to do so for
other 24-hour uses.
Willmus clarified that his personal consideration would involve what particular
subarea was being considered.
sought clarification from Councilmember Willmus as to whether he was indicating
he may consider 24-hour retail and other uses in all subareas; with
Councilmember Willmus responding affirmatively.
McGehee advised that she concurred with the comment of Councilmember Etten; and
was not generally in favor of 24-hour uses in this area, but would be willing
to make some limited distinction between retail and other uses, such as an
urgent care center, since a possible future hospital seemed to no longer be in
the picture. Councilmember McGehee noted the current medical center use at the
corner of County Road C and Fairview that could at some point become an urgent
care use. Councilmember McGehee opined that for her whether to P or NP 24-hour
uses depended on their particular subarea and category.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that a 24-hour gas station was
considered retail. Therefore, Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the need to
separate 24-hour retail and other 24-hour uses; clarifying that she had less
issues in Subarea B versus moving further toward neighborhoods where she became
concerned with more issues.
Willmus concurred with those comments.
sought to determine if that indicated any 24-hour uses would be P in Subarea B,
but not necessarily in Subareas A and C.
Laliberte confirmed her agreement with that interpretation, at least at this
stage of the discussions.
Laliberte noted that the southern section of Subarea B (behind Byerly's) was
just across County Road C residential, and suggested that be part of the
consideration as well.
Mayor Roe asked
colleagues if existing language adequately addressed other restrictions with
24-hour operations, or whether they needed further enhancement for all extended
hours across the City. Mayor Roe suggested it appeared the Council seemed most
concerned with 24-hour retail uses based on concerns with customers coming and
going 24 hours per day; but sought clarification as to whether those concerns
also involved deliveries; or whether limited production uses with three shifts
of employees coming and going, including during the evening, required additional
McGehee stated her concern was more with customers coming and going and
requiring additional demand for public safety services in that area versus
shift workers remaining for the duration of their shift which would differ from
ongoing traffic with 24-hour retail uses. Councilmember McGehee noted the
existing Grumpy's and Bent Brewstillery conforming to similar hours; and opined
that it seemed sufficient time to get business done without extending those
Mayor Roe reiterated
his question as to whether or not it seemed that the primary issue was
customers coming and going (e.g.. 24-hour gas station retail use) as opposed to
an urgent care use with people also coming and going at all hours; and with no
apparent concern in restricting deliveries.
Mayor Roe concluded this was the consensus.
Operations Specific to Certain Areas
indicated the next area of focus was whether those uses were NP in certain
areas or not.
discussion only and specific to Subarea A, Councilmember Willmus noted retail
uses like gas stations and their proximity to areas such as the James Addition
neighborhood south of County Road C provided one distinction for him versus
Subarea A, since those uses didn't directly abut residential properties.
Therefore, for Subarea B, Councilmember Willmus stated he may consider more
intensive uses along County Road C.
At the request
of Mayor Roe as to whether he would consider 24-hour uses for Subarea B, Councilmember
Willmus stated that it was possible if a P use, but he would leave any
potential 24-hour retail use as CU.
further discussion, Mr. Lloyd referenced the Table of Uses in the RCA.
questioned his colleagues as to whether 24-hour retail was wrong in Subarea C.
Laliberte noted that level of detail had not been considered at this point,
only whether Subarea C is CU or NP at all.
McGehee spoke in support of NP in Subarea C and P with CU for Subarea B; while
only halfheartedly supporting it particularly directly across from the James
Addition to her concerns and frequent complaints related to headlights.
Etten sought clarification of the definition for something 24-hour versus
something open until 1:00 a.m.; or how to define and address the intent if a
use was open until 5:00 a.m. and only closed for two hours before reopening.
Gaughan responded that a 24-hour use was just that, open 24-hours, with no 1:00
a.m. closing time; and clarified that hours of operation were clearly addressed
in existing City Code.
McGehee stated her support to limiting hours of operation.
clarified that such specificity was not necessary at this point, provided the
Council concurred that it remain consistent with other areas according to code.
At the request
of Mr. Lloyd and without objection, Mayor Roe clarified that Subarea C was NP.
Willmus questioned whether, in all Subareas, including Subarea C, consideration
had been given to imposing limits on those types of 24-hour uses for anything
outside retail, including distribution operations.
questioned if they were governed by current extended hours of operation in
responded that they were, including addressing district-wide operations; with
extended hours applying to anything outside single- or two-family districts,
and including the overnight movement of goods from a distribution facility.
confirmed with Mr. Lloyd that current code provided restrictions on loading
operations between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. unless completely enclosed and
within a roofed structure, with the exterior doors closed.
questioned whether McGough Construction, located in Subarea C, was considered a
Development Director Paul Bilotta responded that McGough didn't fall under
current code requirements for restrictions within 300' from residential
parcels. Mr. Bilotta noted other variables within Subarea C that would also address
Byerly's operation across from the James Addition, since they did not directly
abut residential properties, while other restrictions applied to adjacent parcels
in the immediate area of residential zoning. Mr. Bilotta noted that, north of
this area with the townhome use, they were intended for transitional, and whenever
indicated there should be some type of residential user to buffer other residential;
with code addressing that in other areas.
objection, Mayor Roe noted, the consensus was to keep P with CU in Subarea C as
indicated in the latest iteration of the Table of Uses in order to not allow
summarized his understanding that the City Council did not support any 24-hour
retail uses in Subareas A, B, or C.
clarified the consensus was that they could be considered as P with CU in all
Laliberte asked her colleagues why not NP in Subarea A and whether that was due
to existing uses along Cleveland Avenue.
Etten responded that many uses were less intensive in a different way than
retail, and not affecting people and other uses in the same way as retail, thus
the designation of P with CU in all Subareas.
issue of 24-hour uses, Ms. McCormick stated she was leaning toward NP in
Subarea A. Ms. McCormick questioned whether there may need to be an additional
Subarea defined as part of Subarea A immediately adjacent to the residential
area. Ms. McCormick noted her preference for NP in Subarea C also, noting on
the map entrants into the north section of Subarea C had to access via Twin
Lakes parkway or Terrace Drive. Even with the brewstillery use, which she
supported, Ms. McCormick noted that she had observed more traffic noise,
whether it was due to the noise bouncing off the pond or for whatever reason.
Ms. McCormick advised that it was not an issue at this time, but if it was to
continue all night with a 24-hour use, it could easily become an issue. Ms.
McCormick opined that another issue distinguishing the James Addition was the
24-hour traffic along County Road C; and opined that continuous noise was not
as noticeable as abrupt noises.
companies and deliveries in Subareas B or C, Ms. McCormick asked if there had
been consideration given to doors opening and closing, and asked whether there
were any current 24-hour operations in that area.
responded that Sela Trucking was a 24-hour operation, as well as Wal-Mart and
proposed hotels in development; and opined there may be some 24-hour operations
in the northwest corner of Subarea A as well.
reiterated her preference for NP, but understood the rationale for P with CU;
and stated she could support CU throughout this area to allow the City Council
more control to review individual situations, and by using that leverage, it
wouldn't serve to set up adversarial situations versus enforcement alone for complaint-driven
issues among neighbors, creating the potential for future problems. Ms.
McCormick further opined that she didn't see so much of an issue north of
Terrace Drive since that entre strip, rezoned in 2009/2010 was rezoned HDR and
had been sold and purchased since that change; therefore she had no issue in
changing it and opined it would probably only serve to increase their property
value if the City Council changed that use. However, Ms. McCormick again noted
the vulnerability of that entrance into the neighborhood and the need to
protect it as much as possible.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Ms. McCormick clarified that she didn't make any
distinction between 24-hour retail or 24-hour other uses; opining that she
preferred not allowing any P uses in that strip and potentially in Subarea C.
LacyKapaun - 1840 County Road C-2
Ms. Kapaun stated
that she really would not like to see any 24-hour retail use in Subarea A; and
could agree with 24-hour retail in Subarea C with restrictions, noting some
24-hour uses may work there. Ms. Kapaun noted existing noise problems off
Fairview Avenue, opining that adding to it could create a real problem for her;
and asked that the City Council take that into consideration.
reviewing some of the public comments expressed, opined that they may
indirectly support the creation of a fourth subarea. Councilmember Willmus
noted he could see 24-hour non-retail as a CU in areas of Subarea A west of
Langton Lake, but not necessarily east of Langton Lake.
For those using
the park, Councilmember McGehee stated she could support that, without
distinction; but keeping 24-hour use of any kind all out of Subarea A.
clarified that it is not now permitted for 24-hour retail; and only as P use
with CU as a potential for a 24-hour non-retail use.
McGehee clarified that she was voting for no 24-hour use of any kind.
As stated by
Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of making uses
much more restrictive, even with them all currently considered P; but in
consideration of zoning for potential residential, making all 24-hour retail
uses NP and all other 24-hour uses only P with CU. Councilmember Etten opined
that this would provide more protection for residential parcels, while still
allowing areas to redevelop.
definitions for Subarea A, Mayor Roe sought consensus on 24-hour non-retail
uses in Subarea A.
Laliberte stated she could support 24-hour non-retail uses as P in Subarea A,
but stated her preference would be for NP.
Willmus stated that he didn't disagree with 24-hour non-retail use as P west of
Langton Lake, but his issue was eastof Langton Lake, thus his advocacy for a
fourth Subarea D/
Mayor Roe noted
the need may be to look at 24-hour non retail as NP versus P with CU.
Laliberte noted previous discussion for Subarea B involved creating a border
along County Road C and Cleveland Avenue; and recalled discussion about the
subarea extending all along Cleveland Avenue.
agreed with that recollection about extending it along Cleveland Avenue;
however, he noted subsequent consensus that it was not preferable due to the
stormwater pond serving as a possible amenity for single-family or twin homes
in that area, and while it remained an issue, the topic had become problematic
during those initial discussions.
Land Use Definitions
Restaurants/Drive-throughs (RCA, Page 3, Lines 83 - 19)
From a staff
perspective, Mr. Lloyd opined that it didn't seem like much more discussion was
necessary other than that definitions were needed. Mr. Lloyd suggested that at
the conclusion of the last discussion, his understanding was that restaurants
of any type, whether fast food, casual or others, were considered NP if they had
a drive-through. Mr. Lloyd opined that if that was the City Council's intent,
there was less importance in drawing a distinction between fast food and
regular restaurants under land use regulations. If the City Council had not
intended that interpretation, Mr. Lloyd advised that then more work was needed
at their discretion.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd clarified that pharmacies, banks and
other uses including a drive-through would fall within the standard approval
process for P with CU, with the Table of Uses continuing to say NP as noted by
clarified that this would provide fast food restaurants with drive-throughs as
NP anywhere within the area, but would permit consideration of drive-throughs for
noted the provision under Section f that required a buffer between property
lines of ten feet, questioning if this included any property line or if
specific to residential uses; and opined that a 10' buffer didn't seem
sufficient from her perspective.
clarified that this was intended more as a visual versus sound buffer, since
code already addressed other requirements to protect adjacent properties (e.g.
loudspeaker volumes, etc.)
and Limited Warehousing/Distribution (RCA, Page 3, Lines 120 - 138)
Councilmembers seemed supportive of this concept at the last discussion, Mr.
Lloyd noted that existing definitions for each area provided standards and restrictions
for noise and compatibility with other tenants in multi-tenant buildings with
this type of use. Mr. Lloyd noted it did not establish noise thresholds or specific
metrics to identify and enforce problems, and suggested if the City Council
felt it was important to further restrict those standards across the Twin Lakes
area or specific Subareas, they identify them for staff to make a
recommendation on what those metrics and standards should be.
opined that current provisions seemed to be fairly close, and sought Council input
as to whether additional standards were needed.
Laliberte sought clarification for standards for standalone buildings versus
multi-tenant buildings or complexes.
responded that the same attributes would apply with the description being made
in the definition that a use cannot disrupt other tenants in a multi-tenant
building, which would preclude their application for a standalone structure
with other uses on adjacent properties.
Mayor Roe concluded that current provisions and definitions were sufficient.
maintained her previous reasoning, preferring that any warehousing type use be
P only with CU. Ms. McCormick opined that this provided more control and while
not eliminating a potential use, it allowed the City Council to act on
individual applications and issues.
Mayor Roe noted
that it was listed as a P use on the Table of Uses.
Laliberte opined that it might depend on whether or not a new and additional
Subarea D was created at which time it could be dealt with, and at which time
she would support CU in that portion of Subarea A.
Willmus agreed with CU as well for Subarea A, again focusing his concerns on
the east side of Langton Lake.
Mayor Roe spoke
in support of CU for limited production/processing in Subarea A; but expressed
his personal willingness to accept P with CU in all subareas.
Big Box Retail
Mayor Roe noted
staff's suggestion for the delineation at 100,000 square feet; noting that
currently big box retail is NP in Subareas B and C, and P with CU in Subarea B.
McGehee stated that she would prefer a limit of 80,000 square feet; however, as
long as it remained NP in Subareas A and C, and P with CU in Subarea B, she
could agree even though she preferred a smaller distinction delineated in
discussions also recognizing the 100,000 square foot distinction, Councilmember
Willmus stated he could be comfortable with that as long as it allowed P with
CU in Subarea B, he was amenable to NP in Subareas A and C.
Laliberte concurred; stated that her only hesitation was in Subarea B and her
rationale to keep P with CU based on her concern about their potential location
near already troubled intersections versus issues with size.
Willmus noted the protection for P with CU; which Councilmember Laliberte
offered to support.
At the request
of Mayor Roe, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that this applied to stand alone buildings,
not strip centers with big box retail as an anchor, which were more easily
measured versus a multi-tenant strip mall scenario.
Mayor Roe suggested
staff review the square footage of anchor stores at Rosedale.
displayed her research on examples of building sizes for big box providing a
rough estimate and gleaned from Ramsey County data some time ago, and advised
that she had provided that list to Community Development Director Bilotta as
City Planner Paschke
clarified that the data provided by Ms. McCormick provided only the footprint
square footage and that the gross square footage (GSF) would be much larger.
Mayor Roe noted
that this was the discussion point for big box formats is the footprint versus
total floor area with multiple story uses.
Laliberte questioned if that needed to be made clearer.
Mr. Lloyd noted
that clarification need as the defining process moved forward, and whether or
not it addressed total floor area.
Mayor Roe noted
that would also address the number of customers shopping there and traffic;
opining that it should not be limited to the footprint only but involve the
Mr. Lloyd noted
there were variables depending on whether standalone or multi-tenant uses.
suggested giving separate consideration for strip centers and other categories
in the Table of Uses and applicable regulations.
Mr. Lloyd clarified
that there was no distinction so far; however, he noted that there were no
regulations differentiating between those retail uses, or whether single tenant
or several smaller tenants.
stated, Ms. McCormick expressed her preference for something smaller,
suggesting 75,000 square feet and larger buildings based on her list for
building footprints. While it may seem large now, Ms. McCormick noted this
would potentially double that number, creating concerns with traffic issues.
Ms. McCormick stated that she definitely preferred less square footage as the
distinction, but definitely only P with CU.
McGehee suggested not to include only the footprint only, citing the example of
Maplewood Menards store listed at 191,000 square feet, but unsure of the actual
footprint of the two-story Menards in St. Paul, and adjacent outside lumber
yards and how they were calculated as part of the whole.
Willmus suggested defining it as 100,000 GSF, and specifically call out and
address to uses in strip centers.
suggested looking at that for future discussion, for single tenants over
100,000 GSF in large strip centers.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Lloyd clarified references to GSF with
measurements used by taking outside box measurements and multiplying square
footage from that.
Mayor Roe noted
the staff (Exhibit B) presented by staff did not take multiple stories into
Willmus noted that his suggestion to use GSF for the calculations would do so;
to which Mr. Lloyd concurred.
current square footage chart provided by staff provided footprint square
footage only, Mayor Roe suggested further review in the future to ensure everyone
understood that this was not addressing strip centers, and that may need to be
addressed at a later point.
Height Issues (RCA, Pages 4-5, Lines 167 - 178)
suggested a 35' maximum height within 300 feet of LDR or Park/Open Space.
Outside that limit, Mayor Roe further opined that it made sense to allow a
maximum height of 65' for multi-family (MDR) or RB-1 and 2 and HDR-2,
regardless of which district. Mayor Roe sought Council discussion, basing his
personal criteria on his rationale and research on existing multi-family uses
and their distance from and adjacent to single-family residential based on
Ramsey County GIS mapping data, that a lot of existing multi-family in
Roseville were 100' to 240' from the nearest single-family home. Mayor Roe
noted this is why he chose 300' from that property line to be more restrictive
without becoming excessive.
As a place to
start discussions, Councilmember McGehee stated she had no problem. However,
Councilmember McGehee sought to strike HDR-2 at a maximum height of 95' and
putting some limits in CB as Mayor Roe addressed in his initial comments.
Mayor Roe noted
the existing Rosedale Tower exceeding that maximum height.
Laliberte supported height restrictions for housing, opining that those
preferring urban dwelling at greater heights lived in Downtown St. Paul or
clarified that restriction within 300' of the Park District, noting the interesting
geometry at the intersection between Subareas A and C and Langton Lake Park,
forming a rectangle for the stormwater pond, but not considered a park.
Willmus sought clarified as to whether the measurement was from the edge of the
property line or from the physical structure on the property.
responded that zoning code read that a proposed building has to stand a
particular distance from other properties in use as single-family or other
uses, not at the edge of a particular property boundary.
noted the intent was to provide a step up between uses, keeping taller
buildings farther away from the property line.
Mayor Roe noted
that could be 35' maximum height from the setback but not immediately adjacent.
Etten noted HDR-1 was currently zoned at 65' maximum height in the northern
area of the illustrious Subarea A.
opined all could agree that current provision is not appropriate.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, attempts were made to identify heights on current
structures (e.g. Applewood Point, Cherrywood Point) and ranges within those
structures depending on topography.
Etten opined that he might look at it differently; whether to zone by area and
look at 45' maximum height for Subarea A by homes and most areas bordering parks,
while other areas (e.g. RB or O/BP) he may look at a conditioned maximum height
of 65'. Councilmember Etten used the example of potential future expansion of
the Semantec building in Subarea A, and how the City would respond and not zone
them out of that Subarea.
sought clarification from Councilmember Etten as to whether his intent was for
lower height restrictions throughout Subarea A or just east of Langton Lake.
Etten responded his intent was for the area east of Langton Lake, or whether
buffered areas on the Lake.
Roe's idea of a 300' height restriction, he noted Symantec would still be
considered along the Lake even though farther away.
Etten responded that whether away from the park boundary or not, it still was a
Mayor Roe asked
Councilmember Etten if there were potentially different distances for different
restrictions in other areas to consider.
Etten responded that it was reasonable to consider a 100' buffer along the
lake; but he found 300' too large and taking up a lot of space.
Mayor Roe noted
the distance from Cleveland to Prior Avenue as 1,250'.
Etten opined that this would involve a lot of things on the west side of
Mayor Roe opined
it was impractical to allowbuildings higher than 35' in a very narrow strip on
the west side of Langton Lake or north of Terrace Drive.
Laliberte stated her gravitation toward Councilmember Willmus' suggestion for
an additional subarea.
suggested a hybrid between additional subareas.
Etten supported a 100' buffer from the park boundary.
Mr. Lloyd noted
the distance between the Park and roundabout was only a little over 500'; with
Mayor Roe concluding that the suggestion for a 300' buffer became impractical.
McGehee noted the continuing heavy-duty lobbying for the area north of Terrace
Drive, opining that this caused her to have difficulty drawing a significant
distinction between the remainder of Subarea A, with the northern portion
having the amenity of Langton Lake and the Park and actually adjacent to a
residential area on the north what needed restrictions, and a park on the east
that has gotten considerable focus.
Mayor Roe noted
there was a park to the north as well.
McGehee stated she had a hard time understanding why Subarea A is not just
that, and expressed her willingness to give a 250' buffer for the lower portion
of Subarea A in the midsection, with everything else remaining the same in
By using the
referenced examples of Applewood and Cherrywood Point, both in Subarea A,
Councilmember Willmus opined that those buildings could not be replicated using
Councilmember McGehee's rationale.
McGehee clarified she was talking 50' maximum height; with Councilmember
Willmus clarifying the Mayor's original proposal was for a 35' maximum height
clarified that would make the maximum height 35' or less; and that he had
stated LDR, not residential, noting the United properties were not in the LDR
McGehee restated her position that she was attempting to hold back height and
intensity around Langton Lake and residential uses as her preference; while
remaining open to not so vigorously enforcing the lower half of Subarea A.
However, Councilmember McGehee stated her strong concern about the remaining
portion of Subarea A and need for height and intensity restrictions. If the
intent was for corporate headquarters, not residential, Councilmember McGehee
stated that she was not opposed to P with CU for that use.
suggested the other alternative would be for PUD as well as P with CU.
McGehee clarified that she did not want a blanket P only by height and
footprint square footage.
suggested all of Subarea A could be a maximum height of 35' and someone could
seek a higher height through the CU or PUD process.
McGehee agreed with that suggestion, opining that this would ensure the City
Council was listening to and responding to residents and protection the Lake
Laliberte stated that she was not in favor of anything extremely tall east of
Langton Lake; pointing out a neighbor comment about such height allowing those
residents to peer down into a neighboring yard. Since there was nothing other
than single-family uses in the other area of Subarea A, Councilmember Laliberte
opined this should create no problem. At this point, Councilmember Laliberte
stated she was not opposed to something similar in height as Cherrywood in
areas west of Langton Lake.
Willmus agreed with Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten in that regard; noting
the distinction between the subarea east and south of Langton Lake.
Etten questioned if he and Councilmember Laliberte were on the same page, and
how Councilmember Willmus was considering his agreement, clarifying that his
intent for a buffer for the Park was different than what she was agreeable to,
with no buffer.
Councilmember Laliberte stated she would consider a small buffer; however, she
also considered a three-story townhome or rowhome that could provide move-up
housing adjacent to the Lake.
clarified that the proposed maximum height was 35', not 45'.
McGehee stated she could support no more than 35' maximum height. Having spent
a lot of time on Langton Lake and in conversations with neighbors in that area,
Councilmember McGehee noted there was not much of a vegetative buffer now, with
no large trees, and people didn't like the heavily-used trail being so narrow
at that point, with a road now being constructed in addition further removing
what people valued most in that particular park, the natural area.
Councilmember McGehee stated her opposition to any other movements to remove
that even further by having tall buildings peering down into it and the buffer
to the south.
sought to bring the intent of Councilmembers Laliberte and Willmus into
agreement by suggesting the westerly parts of Subarea A, except the strip along
the Park as noted by Councilmember Etten, could exceed the maximum height of
35' and potentially as high as 65'.
Laliberte questioned 65', but agreed it needed to be more than 35'.
Mayor Roe noted
current height restrictions in other districts except HDR-2 indicate a 65' maximum.
Laliberte responded that this was only one example, and also identified
Cherrywood Point as another example.
suggested a strip wide enough to allow townhomes and rowhomes along Langton
Lake, and taller uses further away.
Etten suggested a buffer strip 100' from the Lake, with a maximum height of
concurred, opining 100' was more workable than his original 300' suggestion.
example, Councilmember Etten noted Villa Park in the east corner had an
adjacent building that was at least four storied high and directly adjacent to
Villa Park boundaries, already setting a precedent.
Willmus suggested determining if there was consensus for a 100' strip away from
the park for maximum height not to exceed 35'; and then reverting to RBD or
O/BP height restrictions at that point.
opined that 100' would provide a good buffer for the lake and park.
Laliberte sought to clarify if the intent was to allow a buffer pertaining to
other uses beyond residential (e.g. clinic, office, corporate headquarters);
with the consensus being that this was indeed the intent.
clarified that, at this point, there was no additional separate of Subarea A.
confirmed that, noting that there was no difference between current and future
uses, with the 100' strip applied to Subarea A east of Langton Lake, leaving
200' for greater heights if applicable.
Etten seconded, and without objection, creation of a fourth Subarea D was the
council direction to staff.
declared no motion was needed.
maximum heights, Ms. McCormick opined that the City Council seemed to be flip
flopping from earlier discussions for zoning for now, not the future. If the
intent was for a 35' maximum height on the west side, Ms. McCormick agreed.
However, Ms. McCormick noted height was a significant issue coming from public
comments, neighborhood surveys, and the subsequent petition seeking no more
than two stories within 1,000'. In reviewing this, Ms. McCormick opined 1,000
would extend down into the middle of Subarea C; and when considering Villa
Park, the distinction was that it had different topography for that PUD and was
not as amenable in this area and the unique character of the neighborhood. Ms.
McCormick referenced the Fairview Avenue entrance into the neighborhood with
anchors of two-story buildings along Fairview Avenue and County Road C, then
higher going north. Ms. McCormick spoke in support of 750' o4 1,000' form
single-family residential; and in alignment with the petition and survey comments.
Mayor Roe noted
the petition for the 1000 foot height limitation, but observed that the Council
had made the determination that such a limitation was not justified.
also asked that the 100' buffer within LDR be increased to 300'.
agreed that tonight's discussion and staff direction was a start for next
steps, which Mayor Roe asked staff to identify.
advised that staff would return to the City Council with a revised Table of
Uses and Subarea map showing a new Subarea D; and felt there was enough
direction to craft actual text to fit into ordinance format, ensuring the text
applied back to the map accurately. Mr. Bilotta anticipated it may be ready
for the June 22, 2015 meeting at least to confirm the Subarea D portion, and
then further determine strategies and next steps.
Discuss Draft Policy Priority Planning Document
Due to time constraints, Mayor Roe
opened this item up for public comment of those in tonight's audience wishing
to address it.
91 Mid Oaks Lane
referenced an e-mail from Scot Becker dated June 8, 2015 and asked that the
City Council carefully review and consider it.
himself, Mr. Grefenberg expressed concern that the City Council established the
Community Engagement Commission (CEC), and had reviewed their priorities in
December and added to their charge, but now was moving toward the strategic
initiatives developed by staff rather than allowing the CEC to have time to
review and comment on the priorities outlined by the City Council in their
strategic planning exercise. Mr. Grefenberg questioned who and what was
driving this document, the City Council of their staff.
stated that community outreach was not the same as civic engagement, but a part
that follows it.
If the City
Council was not interested in the CEC's participation and assistance, Mr.
Grefenberg strongly urged them to stop wasting time if they had no intention of
listening to the CEC, creating a situation where civic engagement meant nothing.
Mr. Grefenberg asked that, if that was the case, the City Council stop using
the term 'civic engagement' as an empty means to show how progressive or
transparent they were.
Rita Mix, 3207,
Old Highway 8,
Ms. Mix referenced
a letter sent to the City Council earlier this week from the Old Highway 8
neighborhood and their association being established. Ms. Mix highlighted
issues brought forward in that letter, and goals to involve the HRA and City
Council to include their subject properties in their strategic plans going forward.
Ms. Mix advised that she had made a similar presentation to the HRA at a
previous meeting, and they seemed interested in this property as a potential development
Ms. Mix noted
the controversy surrounding this property for some time, and previous proposals
that would have been detrimental to the properties and adjacent townhomes, but
would have been allowed under past and current code. Ms. Mix advised it was
the neighborhood association's intent to prevent such occurrences in the
future; and thus were requesting that it be placed within the parameters of the
strategic plan. Ms. Mix asked that part of that consideration be reducing density
on the two available properties, initially designated single-family land use;
and both having abatement issues. Ms. Mix noted most developers have approached
the properties seeking to develop them with as much density as possible,
negatively impacting adjacent properties and wetland areas, creating flowing hazards
as well as additional traffic for this already-congested five-corner intersection.
Ms. Mix opined it would be much better for the neighborhood if the density was
reduced to MDR, and if any higher density was considered the community and neighborhood
be involved in any future plan or use of those two parcels.
3609 33rd Avenue N.E., St. Anthony Village
concurred with the comments of Ms. Mix and asked that the City consider the
written comments referenced. A the owner of a home near the five-intersection
triangle, Mr. Buck noted the importance to him in future strategic plans of the
HRA and City Council and future use of these parcels. Mr. Buck opined this was
a broader community issue, not just one affecting the neighborhood, and those
concerns remained relevant and had been frequently reinforced over the years as
high density development proposals had come forward and fortunately failed for
one reason or another.
Motion to Extend Curfew
At approximately 10:03 p.m.,
Laliberte moved, Etten seconded extending the meeting curfew to address any
public comment from those present related to the Draft Policy Priority Planning
Document (Item 15.a); and the additional Item 15.c relating to including budget
information in the next edition of the City newsletter.
Ayes: Willmus, Etten,
McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.
noted that during her last public comment on this PPP issue, she had identified
a mistake on the value proposition and wondered how that translated throughout
the document. Ms. McCormick expressed her concern that the strategic
initiatives developed by staff don't accurately reflect what she observed during
attendance at or viewing tapes of the Retreat or through reading through City
Council objectives at that time.
As an example,
Ms. McCormick referenced page 8 of the document (concepts) and concerns raised
that it lacked definition and was not cohesive or consistent in the
understanding of terms. Ms. McCormick opined that she had actually heard more
about engagement at that point when listening to the meeting, whether community
or civic, and suggested that it had been the facilitator that had actually
coined it more governance than culture.
that with the highest priorities identified in Appendix 5 for the SWOT
analysis, Ms. McCormick opined that a majority of those were not included in
strategic initiatives. Ms. McCormick stated that she had expected consistency
for staff and City Council priorities; and wondered if that lack of definition
was the intent or City Council vision but not accurately carried through in the
initiatives. Ms. McCormick opined that with culture, where was the
accountability, and it should have been addressed since it goes to the heart of
the matter alluded to in a lot of the initiatives.
also sought more cost analysis performed, as addressed in LMC models, since she
saw the City Council as fiscal, social capital and environmental stewards of taxpayer
resources. Since the City Council apparently based their priorities on public
input, community surveys, the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning, and
other documents, Ms. McCormick referenced the ongoing comments during the 2015
budget process from taxpayers talking about the strain of taxes, and potential
of being taxed out of their homes. Ms. McCormick noted the information
provided by Finance Director Miller in his presentations and identifying that
the reinvestment period for Roseville would involve the next decade. Ms.
McCormick opined that was a missing piece in the strategic planning process;
further opining that there were many better initiatives than those staff had
developed. As elected leaders of the community, Ms. McCormick opined something
more was needed to spur everyone to be better. As an extension of Roseville resident,
Ms. McCormick opined that the City Council and staff needed to represent and
listen to its constituents in their stewardship role.
stated she wanted the City to be the best they could be; and while appreciating
the process, thought things had gone aright; even though when observing the
City Council interaction during the Retreat, found the most inspiration at the
final summation and statements on the desire to be great across the board and
build community with community.
New Agenda Item - Budget Information/Insert for City Newsletter
McGehee requested an tear-out insert in the upcoming July 2015 newsletter.
Councilmember McGehee suggested basing it on the broader budget priorities as
listed on the website, with an area for citizens to comment and provide their
priorities; as well as providing contact information for them to call, write or
e-mail comments to appropriate parties at City Hall. In her preliminary
discussions with Communications Manager Garry Bowman, Councilmember McGehee
stated there was still time to get this included, and recommended it be made
part of the budget process now at the beginning for transparency efforts.
McGehee opined that since the newsletter reached all residents, it would
provide a budget snapshot for them to respond to and become involved, allowing
more transparency, information sharing, and getting more citizen input.
Mayor Roe questioned
why there would be any objection to that, and suggested including information
on the 2016 budget calendar as well.
Trudgeon advised that, while not yet having reviewed the mock-up, there was a
budget article included already. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the deadline was this
Thursday, and if a tear-out as suggested conceptually by Councilmember McGehee,
noted there would be a cost associated with it. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the
insert could be funded from the Communications budget; but he could provide no
estimate at this time; and asked for clarification of the City Council to
narrow down the information most useful for them with this additional budget
opined it sounded like simply a general feedback form from the public.
McGehee opined that it would provide notice to residents and provide a chance
for them to contact City Hall and list their priorities. Councilmember McGehee
suggested using the 2015 listing from the website by department, and duplicate
a column for 2016 allowing the public to rank those same priorities for
funding, as well as an area for comments.
supporting the idea and potential information provided, Councilmember Laliberte
questioned the accuracy or how to track it to avoid multiple submissions by the
questions on the actual format under discussion, City Manager Trudgeon
displayed the actual website area for further discussion.
Willmus stated he would find it problematic to use any submissions as survey;
but while putting the information out was not a bad idea, he noted a future
newsletter edition coming out closer to setting the preliminary levy, suggesting
that could provide a better opportunity to solicit that information.
McGehee clarified that it was not her intent to use the information as a survey
tool, but simply part of the educational process and to receive information
from residents wishing to comment. Councilmember McGehee was not supportive of
using a later edition, since it would come out only three days before setting
the preliminary levy and therefore, would provide no time to absorb the
feedback in any meaningful way.
opined that it made sense to include the 2015 broader information from the
website and contact information, as well as the budget calendar of steps in the
process; and encouraging residents to contact the City Council at the general
ensued regarding the format of the insert for ease of submission.
Trudgeon noted it would be less expensive to include it on an available page
for cut out versus a tear-out.
discussion, without objection staff was directed to proceed with a comment form
in the body of the budget item providing 2015 budget categories and average
homeowner monthly costs, with comments and feedback requested, but not ranking
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:22 p.m.
Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe.